First, I would like to thank Patrick O’Bryan for writing a response to my last article about representative democracy. While O’Bryan failed to rebut my argument regarding the superiority of representative democracy over direct democracy, he did point out a detail I took for granted in writing the column.
What I took for granted is, as O’Bryan stated in his article, “a fair-minded, intelligent human being could not be against same-sex marriage.” While I took this for granted, I did not overlook it. I do indeed believe that all fair-minded, intelligent people understand gays are part of the “all men” who were created equal, and should thus be granted equal civil rights with all other people.
Indeed, I have yet to encounter any fair-minded, intelligent reason or argument as to why gay and lesbian couples should not be allowed to get married. The reasons I have heard have all been largely traditionalistic, homophobic or fundamentalist religion induced. And I say this as objectively as possible. I have honestly never heard a rational, reasonable argument against same-sex marriage.
It’s always either “God says it’s wrong” or “I just don’t believe it’s right” or “well, marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman” (aka “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”). These, in my humble opinion, are not fair-minded or intelligent.
These reasons are in opposition to fair-mindedness and intelligence, and I simply cannot see a rational basis for them. Rather, I see them as backward and irrational. Indeed, Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain and Sweden recognize gay marriage as fully equal to heterosexual marriage. Others countries like Aruba and Israel recognize them, but do not perform them because of religious reasons. Even more countries nationally recognize civil unions and registered partnerships.
While I’m on the topic of gay rights, I would like to take this moment to lament the death of a nationally-recognized gay rights activist, Keith Kimmel. Kimmel was found dead March 31 morning in a friend’s apartment. I’ve spoken with Kimmel on several occasions and can personally say he was a very honorable, respectable person.
Kimmel gained national recognition for suing the Oklahoma Tax Commission after it rejected his application for a personalized license plate reading “I’M GAY.”
According to his blog Kimmel died two days after a brutal encounter with Tulsa police. He filed a formal complaint detailing the abuse, the file of which can be downloaded from his blog (keithontap.wordpress.com).
While it is not clear whether the Tulsa police’s actions are the cause of Kimmel’s death, the fact that he is no longer with us is deeply saddening to me personally. I will continue to monitor the case, and urge an investigation to be launched into officers’ actions directly to Tulsa Police Department. I ask any concerned readers to do the same.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
soonergirl1064 2 years, 1 month ago
@mustafa:
I agree with you 100%. You hit the nail right on the head!
dargus 2 years, 1 month ago
Mustafa, could you elaborate exactly what claims homosexuals will make that can destroy hetero-marriage?
Frankly, I don't see why married people get special benefits anyway. Any two people should be able to enter into legal contracts with rights similar to marriage. This isn't a homosexual point, but rather a libertarian one.
dargus 2 years, 1 month ago
mustafa, Prop 22 was banning same sex marriage. How did that support your point?
kdbp1213 2 years, 1 month ago
let homosexuals enter marriage just as heterosexuals enter marriage. let the homosexuals be miserable, too.
what's the big deal? let's lump hetero- and homo- marraiges into one category and maybe homosexuals could lower the divorce rate in oklahoma.
somebody's marriage/lifestyle (homo- or hetero-) does not directly affect my life. i'm happy for happily married people. it's freedom of choice, folks.
mustafa 2 years, 1 month ago
"If you are going to allow same sex marriages, then it does make sense to remove gender specific language from the law. The language is clearly inaccurate when homosexual marriages are added."
TA-DA! Thank you very much, dargus . A victory lap is definitely in order. Excuse me moment. TA-DA! TA-DA!
QFlux says the bill that Swartzennegger signed into law has since been invalidated. Maybe so but thanks Qfux for validating my claim that this is seriously being attempted. Time another victory lap-TA-DA!TA-DA!
Dargus you said: "Any two people should be able to enter into legal contracts with rights similar to marriage."
That is just it, they have been given legal unions, and there has always been Legal Partnerships. But it isn't good enough for them. "Legal contracts with rights similar to marriage" isn't what the homosexuals have ever wanted, that just the lip-service vehicle they have used for political cover. Civil Unions don't allow them to get in the very same circle that heteros are in, therefore so they can take away what heteros have. Homosexuals in general, are jealous, bitter and extremely threatened by the presence of happily married heteros.
There is some inherently wrong with what they do and they know it. They have a burning desire to make the world as affirming as possible. But they just can never get there, which is why the most affirming city in the US has the highest rate of suicides among homosexuals
As far as my "making something out to be more than it is" let me point out, I said:
"Once homosexuals get “marriage” they will begin in earnest to claim that heterosexual marriage, by itself, marginalizes and stigmatizes homosexuals."
The key words here are "Once" and "in earnest" This isn't over, they're not going to stop.
Qfux- "that is a private affair up to the corporation itself"
OH... so the homosexual movement won't target non-compliant corporations with boycotts and lawsuits on behalf of offended employees. Is that what your trying to hand me. If so you don't know jack about the history of this conflict.
mustafa 2 years, 1 month ago
As far as Kimmel is concerned , I heard the report the night is happened. At that time the speculation was that it was most likely a domestic violence situation. Which means no political mileage for the perpetuation of the myth of homosexual persecution.
On homosexual marriage as opposed to just legal unions, the homosexual movement insists or marriage precisely so they can deconstruct the institution of heterosexual marriage. Despite their denials that is their intention, proof abounds. Once homosexuals get “marriage” they will begin in earnest to claim that heterosexual marriage, by itself, marginalizes and stigmatizes homosexuals. This is based on the fact that heterosexual marriage has some things that homosexual marriage does not have, and can never have. Thus heterosexual will have to fundamentally change so that the homosexuals do feel bad.
dargus 2 years, 1 month ago
I suppose I agree with the homosexuals then. If civil unions, under the law, are good enough for two men or two women, then it should be good enough for a man and a woman. Now they are equal under the law and have nothing to complain about. If you want to get "married", have your clergyman do it. If a clergyman wishes to "marry" gays, it is their prerogative. I see no reason for the law to make such a distinction. Isn't God the marriage overseer anyway?
Also, just because a particular group might, in the future, attempt to push further, isn't a reason not to do something now that is the right thing to do.
mustafa 2 years, 1 month ago
Thank you for asking.
What heterosexual marriage has that homosexual marriage does not and will never is…
gender specific words and symbols.
e.g. bride, groom, wife, husband, father, mother, white wedding dress, father of the bride, groome's men, best man, bride’s maids and so on.
Calls to eliminate these terms are already going on. California already forbids the terms, bride, groom, wife and husband in official state documents. In some corporate offices such pictures as the husband with kids ,or the wife in her wedding dress are banned from cubicles because they identify the person there as a heterosexual thus causing any homosexual who has no such pictures to be marginalized.
QFlux 2 years, 1 month ago
Mustafa: You are referring to Proposition 22 which while receiving 61% of popular support, was invalidated. Also, this hurts heterosexuals as much as letting same-sex couples marry hurts heterosexuals. Get over it. You're a husband and wife, the court documents were simply simplified to be more flexible due to the new fact that marriage was no longer framed with a husband and wife.
As to your corporation claim: that is a private affair up to the corporation itself.
"This is based on the fact that heterosexual marriage has some things that homosexual marriage does not have, and can never have"
It is absurd to believe that because a same-sex couple can't be referred to as husband and wife, that they will seek "vengeance".
"Once homosexuals get “marriage” they will begin in earnest to claim that heterosexual marriage, by itself, marginalizes and stigmatizes homosexuals."
I have yet to see anything that indicates this.
dargus 2 years, 1 month ago
If you are going to allow same sex marriages, then it does make sense to remove gender specific language from the law. The language is clearly inaccurate when homosexual marriages are added.
As for pictures, I'm skeptical this is a serious issue and I'd like to see some evidence of it. Homosexuals have families, so I don't see how a picture of a family is offensive to them. Granted, I'm sure there are a couple of jackasses trying this somewhere, but we shouldn't legislate based on a couple jackasses pushing the bounds of reason. It sounds more like right wing propaganda chumming the waters and making something out to be more than it is.
mustafa 2 years, 1 month ago
Someone said I was talking about Prop 22. Since I’m was talking about why the homosexual movement insists on “marriage” as opposed to civil unions, with which virtually no one has a problem, I assumed that was his meaning. I do know that it was made unlawful to use words like wife and husband in Calif. official documents. And you admitted that that is a justifiable desire IF they are given “marriage.”
The homosexual movement has been proclaiming for decades that “homosexual marriage will not negatively impact heterosexual marriage at all.” Depriving heterosexuals unions of its unique language and symbols, I do believe, qualifies as negative impact.
Dargus- Allow me to point that when I hung out the bait, “heterosexual marriage will continue to marginalize and stigmatize homosexuals because it has some things that homosexual marriage does not have, and can never have,” you didn’t know what I was referring to. The answer should have been obvious, or at least soon recognizable after a little thought. Yet you need someone like me, of all people, to bring you up to speed. I suggest you reexamine you position on homosexual marriage based on you new found conclusion.
dargus 2 years, 1 month ago
mustafa, I wanted to know what you thought they were trying to do. I find your paranoid visions of the future very entertaining. I've already heard all the points you've made before. I don't think my position needs reexamining. Remove marriage from the sphere of the state and the problem is solved. I see no problem removing gender specific language from the law. No one is going to be arrested for saying husband or wife.
Can you provide me with some evidence that pictures of families are being banned from corporate offices?
mustafa 2 years, 1 month ago
That damage control isn't working.
The best place to ask is probably at the college of Human Relations. Human Relation departments, in any company large enough to have one, are havens for liberals, after all their prime function is to enforce politically correct policies.
No one said anything about being arrested. When you begin working for National Buggy Whip you'll be told during company orientation what is permitted and what isn't.
And of course with the death grip liberals have on education most new employees will already know better than to expect otherwise. They will have studied re-worked works such as "The Merry Life-Parteners Of Windsor."
The homosexual movement gives plenty of signals as to what they eventually want. You may have to try listening to something besides NPR. I have even hear it argued that wearing a wedding ring is could be considered negatively impacting on singles.
dargus 2 years, 1 month ago
Damage control? I'm confused. I clearly stated my position many posts ago, and that hasn't changed. You are the one, once again, making claims that are only backed up by your personal guarantee. Unless you can point me to some real information, I'll pass on accepting your paranoid fantasies.
ThatOneGuyFromThatOnePlace 2 years, 1 month ago
Suppose we were to call a man wanting to be with a woman: A
And then we call a man wanting to be with a man or a woman with a woman: B
Then we call the term for man being with a woman and receiving the tax breaks and whatnot: C
And we call the term for man being with a man and receiving the tax breaks and whatnot as: D
Then A is allowed by law to be C
And B is allowed by law to be D
Same-sex marriage is B wanting to be C
Throw all the symbolic implications and crap out the window. It's just asinine.
mustafa 2 years, 1 month ago
Why should heterosexual marriage be diminished even to the slightest degree anywhere, just so that the homosexuals can feel better? And if it is, and the more that it is, the more heterosexuals are justified in resenting the oppression of the minority. It isn't prejudice, it is backlash.
dargus 2 years, 1 month ago
Why should the state recognize marriage at all? Heteros keep reminding the gays that it is their religious word and that's why the gays can't have it. The state has no business in such things.